Jim, After scanning thousands of negatives and slides, I can give the following experience. The scanner that you use will greatly influence the comparison. Slides tend to be contrastier and denser than negatives which can cause problems for many scanners. The more expensive the scanner, the better it usually handles the density. The scanning software you use will greatly influence the quality and ease of your scans. I have found repeatedly than using Hamrick's Vuescan software has given me better results than the manufacturers software - especially for negatives. It has the corrections for many negative films already built in which can ease the process of correction after the scan.
The slide has an advantage in that you can view it directly as you work on final color correction whereas with a negative you are relying on your memory and good color sense. For me, who has never owned a really great scanner (HP Photosmart S20 and Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II), I have had better luck with negatives. If I had a high end Nikon or Minolta scanner that really did the slides justice, I might feel the other way. Bruce Thursday, August 29, 2002, 7:22:10 AM, you wrote: JF> Is it better or easier to scan 35mm slides or negs? What are the pros and JF> cons of both. JF> Thanks, JF> Jim Fellows JF> ----- Original Message ----- JF> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JF> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JF> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:58 AM JF> Subject: RE: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war? >> On 29 Aug 2002 at 13:50, Knut Kampe wrote: >> >> > The question is really where to put the compromise for convenience/max >> > performance. That is something everyone has to decide for himself (how >> > often do I need max performance?). >> >> I agree that the performance of films are improving, there are no desk-top >> scanners that do justice to the best prepared 35mm negatives at this date. >> There is a lot of detail that can't be captured at 4000dpi, a quick JF> comparison >> of a quality 4000dpi scan vs an original slide under a good 30x + loupe or >> microscope will display the reality. >> >> The question of acceptability really has to be made relative to the JF> intended >> use of the image, not max performance as such. For instance in catalogue >> production or for product images destined for web dispaly etc I can't >> understand how anyone has doubt that digital image capture is king right JF> now. >> Performance in these cases roughly translates to ease of colour balance, JF> short >> turn-around and lack of film costs. >> >> > Also how long do you want to be able to access your images is an JF> important >> > question! >> > >> > Most digital images taken today will be useless in 20 years -because the >> > quality has moved on, or the storage formats change and the old are no >> > longer readable.... I will always be able to look at the pictures I took JF> on >> > slides and scan them again (color fading is no longer a problem of JF> modern films. >> > Lifetime appears to be secure for 50-100 years storage time). >> >> I can't truly accept this mode of thinking, I have images which I scanned JF> many >> years ago and they are still on my system, readable, usable and backed up. JF> I >> can also write a slide or neg of any digital image via my film printer or JF> send >> it to a lab with a digital RA-4 printer and get prints back same as film. JF> Film >> too has to be looked after just the same. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Rob Studdert >> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >> >>
